Hindawi

Journal of Mathematics
Volume 2020, Article ID 7586181, 6 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/7586181

Research Article
Uniqueness Problems about Entire Functions with Their
Difference Operator Sharing Sets

Fan Niu,1 Jianming Qi ,1 and Zhiyong Zhou2

1
Business College, Shanghai Dianji University, Shanghai 200240, China
2
School of Design and Art, Shanghai Dianji University, Shanghai 200240, China

Correspondence should be addressed to Jianming Qi; qijianmingdaxia@163.com

Received 6 January 2020; Accepted 11 April 2020; Published 5 November 2020

Academic Editor: Sei-Ichiro Ueki

Copyright © 2020 Fan Niu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
In this paper, we study the uniqueness questions of finite order transcendental entire functions and their difference operators
sharing a set consisting of two distinct entire functions of finite smaller order. Our results in this paper improve the corresponding
results from Liu (2009) and Li (2012).

1. Introduction and Main Results Ef (S) � ∪ 􏼈z|f(z) − a � 0, counting multiplicities􏼉.

Before proceeding, we spare the reader for a moment and
assume some familiarity with the basics of Nevanlinna
theory of meromorphic functions in C such as the first and
second main theorems and the usual notations such as the
characteristic function T(r, f), the proximity function
m(r, f), and the counting function N(r, f). S(r, f) denotes
any quantity satisfying S(r, f) � o(T(r, f)) as r ⟶ ∞,
except possibly on a set of finite logarithmic measure not
necessarily the same at each occurrence, see e.g., [1–3].
Let f be a meromorphic functions on C. Here, the order
ρ(f) is defined by
log T(r, f)
ρ(f) � limsup , (1)
r⟶∞ log r
and the exponent of convergence of zeros λ(f) is defined by
log N(r, (1/f))
λ(f) � limsup . (2)
r⟶∞ log r
For a given a ∈ C 􏽢 � C ∪ {∞}, we say that two mero-
morphic functions f and g share a CM (counting multi-
plicities) when f and g have the same a-points. Let S be a
finite set of some entire functions and f an entire function.
Then, a set Ef (S) is defined as
a∈S
(3)
Assume that g is another entire function. We say that f
and g share a set S, counting multiplicities (CM), provided
that Ef (S) � Eg (S).
The uniqueness theory of meromorphic functions
sharing sets generalizes that on sharing values and
generally is more difficult. If meromorphic functions
share a general set, it is not easy to determine these
functions. In 1999, Li and Yang [4] deduced that
if Ef (S) � Ef′(S) with S contain two distinct constants,
then f must have special forms. Fang and Zalcman [5]
used the theory of normal family to solve the above
problem by proving that there exists a finite set S con-
taining three distinct elements such that if Ef (S) � Ef′(S),
then f � f′ .
Recently years, Nevanlinna characteristic of f(z + c),
the value distribution theory for difference analogue,
Nevanlinna theory of the difference operator, and the dif-
ference analogue of the lemma on the logarithmic derivative
had been built, see e.g., [1–4, 6–14]. For meromorphic
functions f(z), we define its shift by fc (z) � f(z + c) and
its difference operators by
2 Journal of Mathematics

Δc f � f(z + c) − f(z), ρ(b) < ρ(f). If f and Δnc f(n ≥ 3) share {a, b} CM, then
1
(4) f(z) � H(z)eAz , where H(z) is an entire function such that
Δnc f � Δn−
c Δc f(z)􏼁, n ∈ N, n ≥ 2. λ(f) � ρ(H) < 1.
By Nevanlinna theory of the difference operator, a 2. Some Lemmas
natural question to ask whether the derivative f′ can be
replaced by the difference operator Δc f(z) � f(z + We will introduce some lemmas for the proofs of our
c) − f(z) in the above question ? theorems in this section.
In 2009, Liu [8] investigated the above question and
proved the following result. Lemma 1 (see [15]). Let f be a meromorphic function of
finite order and let ω1 and ω2 be two arbitrary complex
Theorem 1. Let a be a nonzero complex number and f be a numbers such that ω1 ≠ ω2 . Assume that σ is the order of f,
transcendental entire function with finite order. If f and Δc f then for each ϵ > 0, we have
share {a, − a} CM, then Δc f(z) � f(z) for all z ∈ C.
f z + ω1 􏼁 σ− 1+ϵ
m􏼠r, 􏼡 � O 􏼐r 􏼑. (5)
In 2012, from Theorem 1, considering the constant in set f z + ω2 􏼁
is replaced by the function, Li [9] proved the following.
Lemma 2 (see [16]). Let g be a function transcendental and
Theorem 2. If a and b are two distinct entire functions, then meromorphic in the plane with order less than 1. Set h > 0.
f is a nonconstant entire function whose ρ(f) ≠ 1 and Then, there exists an ϵ-set E such that
λ(f) < ρ(f) < ∞ such that ρ(a) < ρ(f) and ρ(b) < ρ(f). If f g(z + ω)
and Δc f share {a, b} CM, then f(z) � Δc f(z) for all z ∈ C. ⟶ 1, when z ⟶ ∞ in C∖E, (6)
g(z)
uniformly in ω for |ω| ≤ h.
After studying Theorem 2, we propose some questions as
follows.
Lemma 3 (see [3]). Suppose that f1 (z), f2 (z), . . . ,
Question 1: from Theorem 2, the condition ρ(f) ≠ 1 fn (z)(n ≥ 2) are meromorphic functions and g1 (z),
seems more stronger. So, one may ask whether it can be g2 (z), . . . , gn (z) are entire functions satisfying the following
weakened or moved? conditions:
Question 2: what will happen if the shift Δc f(z) be (1) 􏽐nj�1 fj (z)egj (z) � 0.
replaced by Δnc f(z)(n ≥ 2) in Theorem 2?
(2) gj (z) − gk (z) are not constants for 1 ≤ j < k ≤ n.
Fortunately, we have recently given a positive answer for (3) For 1 ≤ j ≤ n, 1 ≤ h < k ≤ n, T(r, fj ) � o(T(r, egh − gk )),
Question 1 (see [14]). In this work, we also discuss the above (r ⟶ ∞, r ∉ E). Then, fj (z) � 0, (j � 1, 2, . . . , n).
problems and especially for Question 2. Finally, we derive
the following results. 3. Proof of Theorems
Theorem 3. Suppose that a and b are two distinct entire Proof of Theorem 1. Due to f and Δ2c f share {a, b} CM, so
functions and f is a nonconstant entire function of finite we set
order with λ(f) < ρ(f) < ∞ such that ρ(a) < ρ(f) and 2 2
ρ(b) < ρ(f). If f and Δ2c f share {a, b} CM, then f(z) must 􏼐Δc f − a􏼑􏼐Δc f − b􏼑
� eQ , (7)
take one of the following conclusions: (f − a)(f − b)
(1) f(z) � Aeμz , where A and μ are two nonzero con- where Q is an entire function. And then it follows from (7)
stants satisfying eμc � 2. Furthermore, f(z) � and max􏼈ρ(a), ρ(b)􏼉 < ρ(f) < ∞ that Q is a polynomial.
Δc f(z). Using Hadamard Factorization Theorem, we assume
(2) f(z) � H(z)eAz . Here, H(z) is an entire function that f(z) � h(z)eP(z) , where h( ≡ 0) is an entire function
and λ(f) � ρ(H) < 1. and P is a polynomial which satisfied
Using the same method, we improve the above result from λ(f) � ρ(h) < ρ(f) � deg(P). (8)
the shift Δc f(z) to Δnc f(z)(n ≥ 3) in above theorem and
obtain the following result. So,

Theorem 4. Suppose that a and b are two distinct entire Δ2c f �f(z + 2c) − 2f(z + c) + f(z) � (h(z + 2c)
functions and f is a nonconstant entire function of finite (9)
order with λ(f) < ρ(f) < ∞ such that ρ(a) < ρ(f) and − 2h(z + c) + h(z))eP(z) .
Journal of Mathematics 3

Put the forms of f and Δ2c f into (7) to yield

P(z+2c)− P(z)
􏽮􏽨h(z + 2c)e − 2h(z + c)eP(z+c)− P(z)
+ h(z)􏽩eP(z) − a(z)􏽯,
P(z+2c)− P(z)
􏽮􏽨h(z + 2c)e − 2h(z + c)eP(z+c)− P(z)
+ h(z)􏽩eP(z) − b(z)􏽯 (10)
� 􏼐h(z)eP(z) − a(z)􏼑􏼐h(z)eP(z) − b(z)􏼑eQ(z) .

Take w1 � h(z + 2c)eP(z+2c)− P(z) − 2h(z + c)eP(z+c)− P(z)

+ a contradiction. Hence,
h(z). We assume that w1 � 0. Then,
h(z + 2c)eP(z+2c) − 2h(z + c)eP(z+c) + h(z)ep(z) � 0. (11) h � w1 . (15)
By Lemma 3, if p(z + 2c) − p(z), p(z + c) − p(z), and
p(z + 2c) − p(z + c) are not constants, then h(z) � 0, a It deduces
contradiction.
So, p(z + 2c) − p(z) � a1 , p(z + c) − p(z) � b1 , and
p(z + 2c) − p(z + c) � c1 , (where a1 , b1 , and c1 are three h(z + c)
2 � eP(z+2c)− P(z+c)
. (16)
constants). h(z + 2c)
We can get p′ (z + 2c) − p′ (z) � 0, p′ (z + c) − p′
(z) � 0, and p′ (z + 2c) − p′ (z + c) � 0. By Lemma 1, for any ϵ > 0,
Hence, p(z) is a periodic function. We also know p(z) is
a polynomial. So, we get p(z) � Az + B (where A and B are
two constants, and A ≠ 0). So, we obtain f(z) � H(z)eAz . h(z + c)
Here, H(z) is an entire function and λ(f) � ρ(H) < 1. m􏼐r, eP(z+2c)− P(z+c)
􏼑 � m􏼠r, 􏼡 + O(1)
h(z + 2c)
If w1 ≠ 0 below, obviously, w1 is a small function of eP . (17)
Rewrite (10) as � O􏼐rρ(h)− 1+ϵ
􏼑 + O(1).
w21 􏽨eP −
a/w1 􏼁􏽩􏽨e − b/w1 􏼁􏽩 P
eQ � 2 P . (12) We also get m(r, eP(z+2c)− P(z+c) ) � [A + o(1)]rρ(f)− 1 ,
h 􏽨e − (a/h)􏽩􏽨eP − (b/h)􏽩
where A is a fixed positive constant.
Note that a ≠ b. Without loss of generality, we set a ≠ 0.
If ρ(f) > 1, using ρ(f) > ρ(h) and the above estimates
Suppose that z0 is a zero of eP − (a/h), but not a zero of w1 .
of m (r, eP(z+2c)− P(z+c) ), It easily gets a contradiction.
From (12), we may easily obtain that z0 is a zero of eP −
So, ρ(f) ≤ 1, this means that eP(z+2c)− P(z+c) is a nonzero
(a/w1 ) or eP − (b/w1 ). We denote by N1 (r, eP ) the reduced
constant c0 . Then, (16) changes to
counting function of those common zeros of eP − (a/h) and
eP(z) − (a/w1 ). Similarly, we also denote N2 (r, eP ) the re- h(z + c)
duced counting function of those common zeros of eP − 2 � c0 . (18)
(a/h) and eP − (b/w1 ). Then, h(z + 2c)

1 Also, noting that 1 ≥ ρ(f) > ρ(h). Then, by Lemma 2,

T􏼐r, eP 􏼑 � N􏼠r, P(z)
􏼡 + S􏼐r, e 􏼑
P
e − (a/h) we get that there exists an ϵ-set E, as z ∉ E and
(13)
|z| ⟶ ∞ such that
P P P
� N1 􏼐r, e 􏼑 + N2 􏼐r, e 􏼑 + S􏼐r, e 􏼑,
which implies that either N1 (r, eP ) ≠ S(r, eP ) or
N2 (r, eP ) ≠ S(r, eP ). We distinguish the two cases as follows: h(z + c)
⟶ 1. (19)
P P
h(z + 2c)
Case 1: N1 (r, e ) ≠ S(r, e ).
We may assume that a0 is a common zero of eP − (a/h) So, c0 � 2 and h(z + c) � h(z + 2c), and this also means
and eP − (a/w1 ). It is obvious that a0 is a zero of that h is a periodic function. If h is a nonconstant
(a/h) − (a/w1 ). If (a/h) − (a/w1 ) � 0, then function, then ρ(h) ≥ 1, a contradiction. Therefore, h is
a constant. Noting that deg(P) � ρ(f) ≤ 1 and f is a
nonconstant entire function. Then, deg(P) � 1. Thus,
1 we may set f � Aeμz , where A and μ are two nonzero
S􏼐r, eP 􏼑 ≠ N1 􏼐r, eP 􏼑 ≤ N􏼠r, 􏼡
(a/h) − a/w1 􏼁 constants.
(14)
Using the assumption of Case 1, one has f − a and
a a P
≤ T􏼠r, − 􏼡 � S􏼐r, e 􏼑, Δc f − a as common zeros, which are not zeros of a.
h w1 Suppose that α0 is a common zero of f − a and Δ2c f − a
4 Journal of Mathematics

and not a zero of a. Then, z0 is a zero of Δ2c f − f. Combining (22) with (24), we deduce that
Moreover,
a2 � b2 . (25)

Note that a ≠ b. Thus, a � − b. Again using (24), we have

f z0 + 2c􏼁 − 2f z0 + c􏼁 � 0, (20) w1 � − h. We rewrite it as
this implies that eμc � 2. Finally, we deduce Δc f � f, h(z + 2c)eP(z+2c)− P(z)
− 2h(z + c)eP(z+c)− P(z)
+ 2h(z) � 0.
which is the desired result.
(26)
Case 2: N2 (r, eP ) ≠ S(r, eP ).
Suppose b0 which is a common zero of eP − (a/h) and Then,
eP − (b/w1 ). Then, it is obvious that b0 is a zero of
h(z + 2c)eP(z+2c) − 2h(z + c)eP(z+c) + 2h(z)eP(z) � 0.
(a/h) − (b/w1 ). If (a/h) − (b/w1 ) ≠ 0, then
(27)
By Lemma 3, if p(z + 2c) − p(z), p(z + c) − p(z), and
P P 1
S􏼐r, e 􏼑 ≠ N2 􏼐r, e 􏼑 ≤ N􏼠r, 􏼡 p(z + 2c) − p(z + c) are not constants, then h(z) � 0; this is
(a/h) − b/w1 􏼁 a contradiction.
(21) So, p(z + 2c) − p(z) � a1 , p(z + c) − p(z) � b1 , and
a b P p(z + 2c) − p(z + c) � c1 (where a1 , b1 , and c1 are three
≤ T􏼠r, − 􏼡 � S􏼐r, e 􏼑,
h w1 constants).
We can get p′ (z + 2c) − p′ (z) � 0, p′ (z + c) − p′
a contradiction. Hence, (z) � 0, and p′ (z + 2c) − p′ (z + c) � 0.
Hence, p(z) is a periodic function. We also know p(z) is
a polynomial. So, we get p(z) � Az + B (where A and B are
a b
− � 0. (22) two constants, and A ≠ 0). So, we obtain f(z) � H(z)eAz .
h w1 Here, H(z) is an entire function and λ(f) � ρ(H) < 1.
Therefore, the proof of the main Theorem 3 is
If b � 0, then (a/h) � 0, a contradiction. Thus, b � 0. finished. □
We may set that c0 is a zero of eP − (b/h), but not a zero
of w1 . It follows from (12) that c0 is a zero of eP − Proof of Theorem 2. Note that f and Δnc f share {a, b} CM.
(a/w1 ) or eP − (b/w1 ). We take by N3 (r, eP ) the re- So, we also set
duced counting function of those common zeros of Δnc f − a􏼁 Δnc f − b􏼁
eP − (b/h) and eP − (a/w1 ). Similarly, we denote by � eQ , (28)
N4 (r, eP ) the reduced counting function of those (f − a)(f − b)
common zeros of eP − (b/h) and eP − (b/w1 ). We where Q is an entire function. Furthermore, it deduces from
obtain (28) and max􏼈ρ(a), ρ(b)􏼉 < ρ(f) < ∞ that Q is a polynomial.
Using Hadamard Factorization Theorem, we assume
that f(z) � h(z)eP(z) , where h( ≠ 0) is an entire function
1 and P is a polynomial satisfying
T􏼐r, eP 􏼑 �N􏼠r, P
P
􏼡 + S􏼐r, e 􏼑 � N3 􏼐r, e 􏼑
P
e − (b/h) (23) λ(f) � ρ(h) < ρ(f) � deg(P). (29)
P P
+ N4 􏼐r, e 􏼑 + S􏼐r, e 􏼑. Then,
It implies that either N3 (r, eP ) ≠ S(r, eP ) or N4 Δnc f � f(z + nc) + bn− 1 f(z +(n − 1)c)
(r, eP ) ≠ S(r, eP ). If N4 (r, eP ) ≠ S(r, eP ), likewise with Case 1, + · · · + b1 f(z + c) + b0 f(z)
we deduce the desired result. Hence, we set that (30)
N3 (r, eP ) ≠ S(r, eP ) below. Similarly with Case 2, we also get � h(z + nc)ep(z+nc) + bn− 1 h(z
that 1)c)
+(n − 1)c)ep(z+(n− + · · · + b0 h(z)ep(z) ,
b a
− � 0. (24) where b0 , b1 , . . . , bn− 1 are constants. Substituting the forms
h w1
of f and Δnc f into (28) yields

p(z+nc)− p(z) 1)c)− p(z)

􏽮􏽨h(z + nc)e + bn− 1 h(z +(n − 1)c)ep(z+(n− + · · · + b0 h(z)􏽩eP(z) − a(z)􏽯,
p(z+nc)− p(z) 1)c)− p(z)
􏽮􏽨h(z + nc)e + bn− 1 h(z +(n − 1)c)ep(z+(n− + · · · + b0 h(z)􏽩eP(z) − b(z)􏽯 (31)
� 􏼐h(z)eP(z) − a(z)􏼑􏼐h(z)eP(z) − b(z)􏼑eQ(z) .
Journal of Mathematics 5

Set w1 � h(z + nc)ep(z+nc)− p(z) + bn− 1 h(z+ (n − 1)c) h � w1 . (36)

1)c)− p(z)
ep(z+(n− + · · · + b0 h(z). Suppose that w1 � 0. Then,
1)c)
h(z + nc)ep(z+nc) + bn− 1 h(z +(n − 1)c)ep(z+(n− It leads to
(32)
+ · · · + b0 h(z)ep(z) 0. 1)c)
h(z + nc)ep(z+nc) + bn− 1 h(z +(n − 1)c)ep(z+(n−
By Lemma 3, if p(z + nc) − p(z), p(z + (n − 1)c)− (37)
p(z), . . . , p(z + c) − p(z) are not constants, then h(z) � 0; a + · · · + b0 − 1􏼁h(z)ep(z) � 0.
contradiction.
So, p(z + nc) − p(z) � an , p(z + (n − 1)c) − p(z) � By Lemma 3, if p(z + nc) − p(z), p(z + (n − 1)c)−
an− 1 , and p(z + c) − p(z) � a1 (where an , an− 1 , . . . , a1 are p(z), . . . p(z + c) − p(z), are not constants, then
three constants). h(z) � 0, a contradiction.
We can get p′ (z + nc) − p′ (z) � 0, p′ (z + (n − 1)c)− So, p(z + nc) − p(z) � an , p(z + (n − 1)c) − p(z) �
p′ (z) � 0, and p′ (z + c) − p′ (z) � 0. an− 1 , . . . , p(z + c) − p(z) � a1 , (where an , an− 1 , a1 are
Hence, p(z) is a periodic function. We also know p(z) is three constants).
a polynomial. So, we get p(z) � Az + B (where A and B are
We can get p′ (z + nc) − p′ (z) � 0, p′ (z + (n − 1)c)−
two constants, and A ≠ 0). So, we obtain f(z) � H(z)eAz .
p′ (z) � 0, . . ., p′ (z + c) − p′ (z) � 0.
Here, H(z) is an entire function and λ(f) � ρ(H) < 1.
If w1 ≠ 0 below, obviously, w1 is a small function of eP . Here, p(z) is a periodic function. We also know p(z) is
Rewrite (31) as a polynomial. So, we get p(z) � Az + B (where A and B
are two constants, and A ≠ 0). Finally, we get
Q w21 􏽨eP − a/w1 􏼁􏽩􏽨eP − b/w1 􏼁􏽩 f(z) � H(z)eAz , where H(z) is an entire function and
e � . (33)
h2 􏽨eP − (a/h)􏽩􏽨eP − (b/h)􏽩 λ(f) � ρ(H) < 1.
Case 2: N2 (r, eP ) ≠ S(r, eP ).
Due to a ≠ b, without loss of generality, we set a ≠ 0. Suppose b0 is a common zero of eP − (a/h) and
Assume that z0 is a zero of eP − (a/h), but not a zero of w1 . It eP − (b/w1 ). Then, it is easy to see that b0 is a zero of
deduces from (33) that z0 is a zero of eP − (a/w1 ) or (a/h) − (b/w1 ). If (a/h) − (b/w1 ) ≠ 0, then
eP − (b/w1 ). We also take N1 (r, eP ) the reduced counting
function of those common zeros of eP − (a/h) and
eP − (a/w1 ). Likewise, we denote by N2 (r, eP ) the reduced 1
S􏼐r, eP 􏼑 ≠ N2 􏼐r, eP 􏼑 ≤ N􏼠r, 􏼡
counting function of those common zeros of eP − (a/h) and (a/h) − b/w1 􏼁
eP − (b/w1 ). Then, (38)
a b
1 ≤ T􏼠r, − 􏼡 � S􏼐r, eP 􏼑,
T􏼐r, eP 􏼑 �N􏼠r, P(z)
P
􏼡 + S􏼐r, e 􏼑 � N1 􏼐r, e 􏼑
P h w1
e − (a/h)
a contradiction. Thus,
+ N2 􏼐r, eP 􏼑 + S􏼐r, eP 􏼑,
(34) a b
P P
− � 0. (39)
this implies that either N1 (r, e ) ≠ S(r, e ) or N2 h w1
(r, eP ) ≠ S(r, eP ). We may distinguish the following two
cases. If b � 0, then (a/h) � 0, a contradiction. Thus, b ≠ 0.
P
Case 1: N1 (r, e ) ≠ S(r, e ). P We assume that c0 is a zero of eP − (b/h), but not a zero
We set a0 a common zero of eP − (a/h) and of w1 . It deduces from (33) that c0 is a zero of eP −
eP − (a/w1 ). Then, it is obvious that a0 is a zero of (a/w1 ) or eP − (b/w1 ). We take by N3 (r, eP ) the re-
(a/h) − (a/w1 ). If (a/h) − (a/w1 ) ≠ 0, then duced counting function of those common zeros of
eP − (b/h) and eP − (a/w1 ). Similarly, we denote by
N4 (r, eP ) the reduced counting function of those
1 common zeros of eP − (b/h) and eP − (b/w1 ). Then,
S􏼐r, eP 􏼑 ≠ N1 􏼐r, eP 􏼑 ≤ N􏼠r, 􏼡
(a/h) − a/w1 􏼁
(35) 1
a a T􏼐r, eP 􏼑 �N􏼠r, P P P
􏼡 + S􏼐r, e 􏼑 � N3 􏼐r, e 􏼑 + N4 􏼐r, e 􏼑
≤ T􏼠r, − P
􏼡 � S􏼐r, e 􏼑, eP − (b/h)
h w1
+ S􏼐r, eP 􏼑,
a contradiction. Hence, (40)
6 Journal of Mathematics
and this implies that either N3 (r, eP ) ≠ S(r, eP ) or
N4 (r, eP ) ≠ S(r, eP ). If N4 (r, eP ) ≠ S(r, eP ). Similarly, as the
same way in Case 1, we get the desired result. So, we assume
that N3 (r, eP ) ≠ S(r, eP ) as follows. Similarly, as the way in
Case 2, we can get that
b a
− � 0. (41)
h w1
It follows from (39) and (41) that
a2 � b 2 . (42)
Note that a ≠ b. Thus, a � − b. Again by (41), one has
w1 � − h. We also rewrite it as
1)c)
h(z + nc)ep(z+nc) + bn− 1 h(z +(n − 1)c)ep(z+(n−
(43)
+ · · · + b0 + 1􏼁h(z)ep(z) � 0.
By Lemma 3, if p(z + nc) − p(z), p(z + (n − 1)c)−
p(z), . . . , p(z + c) − p(z) are not constants, then h(z) � 0, a
contradiction.
So, p(z + nc) − p(z) � an , p(z + (n − 1)c) − p(z) �
an− 1 , . . . , p(z + c) − p(z) � a1 (where an , an− 1 , . . . , a1 are
three constants).
We also get p′ (z + nc) − p′ (z) � 0, p′ (z + (n − 1)c)−
p′ (z) � 0, . . ., p′ (z + c) − p′ (z) � 0.
Hence, p(z) is a periodic function. We also know p(z) is
a polynomial. So, we get p(z) � Az + B (where A and B are
two constants, and A ≠ 0). Finally, we get f(z) � H(z)eAz .
Here, H(z) is an entire function and λ(f) � ρ(H) < 1.
Proof of Theorem 4 is completed. □ [14] J. M. Qi, Y. F. Wang, and Y. Y. Gu, “A note on entire functions
Data Availability
No data were used to support this study.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Authors’ Contributions
All authors typed, read, and approved the final manuscript.
Acknowledgments
The work presented in this paper was supported by the
Plateau Disciplines in Shanghai, Leading Academic Disci-
pline Project of Shanghai Dianji University (16JCXK02), and
Philosophy and Social Sciences Planning Project of the
Ministry of Education (Grant no. 18YJC630120).
References
[1] W. K. Hayman, Meromorphic Functions, Clarendon Press,
Oxford, UK, 1964.
[2] I. Laine, Nevanlinna Theory and Complex Differential Equa-
tions, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, Germany, 1993.
[3] C. C. Yang and H. X. Yi, Uniqueness Theory of Meromorphic
Functions, Science Press, Beijing, Germany, 2003.
[4] P. Li and C.-C. Yang, “Value sharing of an entire function and
its derivatives,” Journal of the Mathematical Society of Japan,
vol. 51, no. 4, pp. 781–799, 1999.
[5] M. Fang and L. Zalcman, “Normal families and uniqueness
theorems for entire functions,” Journal of Mathematical
Analysis and Applications, vol. 280, no. 2, pp. 273–283, 2003.
[6] R. G. Halburd and R. J. Korhonen, “Nevanlinna theory for the
difference operators,” Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fen-
nicae Mathematica, vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 463–478, 2006.
[7] R. G. Halburd and R. J. Korhonen, “Difference analogue of the
lemma on the logarithmic derivative with applications to
difference equations,” Journal of Mathematical Analysis and
Applications, vol. 314, no. 2, pp. 477–487, 2006.
[8] K. Liu, “Meromorphic functions sharing a set with applica-
tions to difference equations,” Journal of Mathematical
Analysis and Applications, vol. 359, no. 1, pp. 384–393, 2009.
[9] X.-M. Li, “Entire functions sharing a finite set with their
difference operators,” Computational Methods and Function
Theory, vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 307–328, 2012.
[10] S. Li and B. Q. Chen, “Results on meromorphic solutions of
linear difference equations,” Advances in Difference Equations,
vol. 2012, pp. 1–7, Article ID 203, 2012.
[11] S. Li, D. Mei, and B. Q. Chen, “Uniqueness of entire functions
sharing two values with their difference operators,” Advances
in Difference Equations, vol. 2017, pp. 1–9, Article ID 390,
2017.
[12] S. Li, D. Mei, and B. Q. Chen, “Meromorphic functions
sharing small functions with their linear difference polyno-
mials,” Advances in Difference Equations, vol. 2013, pp. 1–6,
Article ID 58, 2013.
[13] I. Laine and C.-C. Yang, “Clunie theorems for difference and q
-difference polynomials,” Journal of the London Mathematical
Society, vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 556–566, 2007.
sharing a finite set with their difference operators,” Advances
in Difference Equations, vol. 2019, pp. 1–7, Article ID 114,
2019.
[15] Y.-M. Chiang and S.-J. Feng, “On the Nevanlinna charac-
teristic of f(z + η) and difference equations in the complex
plane,” The Ramanujan Journal, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 105–129,
2008.